Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Carty
Citations: 620 P.2d 137; 27 Wash. App. 715; 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 2445Docket: 7835-6-I
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; December 1, 1980; Washington; State Appellate Court
Rachel E. Carty was convicted of failure to yield the right-of-way under RCW 46.61.185 after a collision while attempting to turn left into her driveway. The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed the conviction, addressing two key issues. First, the court determined that the State is not required to prove criminal intent or negligence when prosecuting a violation of RCW 46.61.185, as this statute is considered malum prohibitum, a regulatory offense aimed at promoting public safety, rather than a malum in se offense that would necessitate proof of intent or negligence. Second, the court concluded that the State does not need to establish that the favored vehicle was proceeding lawfully. The defendant argued that the other driver, Brian Izett, was speeding and therefore lost the right-of-way. However, the court found that the State had sufficiently proven all elements of the offense without needing to demonstrate that Izett was driving lawfully, as the unchallenged findings indicated he was driving within the speed limit. The ruling emphasized that the statutory requirements for yielding the right-of-way were met, leading to the affirmation of Carty's conviction. RCW 46.61.400 mandates that no person shall operate a vehicle at a speed exceeding what is reasonable and prudent given the existing conditions and potential hazards. Drivers must control their speed to avoid collisions with any individuals, vehicles, or conveyances on or entering the highway. Specifically, drivers are required to reduce speed when approaching intersections, railway crossings, curves, hill crests, narrow or winding roads, and in the presence of special hazards, such as pedestrians or adverse weather conditions. In findings of fact, it is noted that on November 5, 1978, in Island County, Washington, defendant Rachel E. Carty, age 82, was traveling west on Lancaster Road when she stopped to make a left turn into a private driveway. At that moment, Brian Izett was approaching from the west and constituted an immediate hazard due to the proximity of his vehicle, resulting in a collision between Carty's vehicle and Izett's vehicle in the eastbound lane of Lancaster Road.